About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2
. >> and dan, how much longer can this questioning go on without reading the suspect his miranda rights? apparently, it hasn't happened yet. >> they're calling it the public safety exception. unclear how long they're allowed to do it. in past cases, like the underwear bomber, they questioned him for about 50 minutes and a court determined that was okay without a miranda warning. the further the time is away from the incident itself, the more perilous it is constitutionally. at some point, it doesn't matter. he challenges it later on, the court says, you shouldn't have done it. you shouldn't have questioned without his miranda. what happens then? that means, they throw out his statement. so what? they don't need his statement in connection. >> they have all the other evidence. >> this is about getting intelligence from him. not a statement they can use in court. >> and these charges expected to be filed. almost certain to face the death penalty. >> it will be a death-eligible charge for sure. a decision made later to seek the death penalty. the use of a weapon of mass destruction would b
that they don't have to read him his miranda rights right away. as time passes, does the justification for that exception grow weaker? are they on ls strong ground? >> it sure does, because as you know, miranda rights are a bedrock constitutional principle. we all have the right to remain silent, t get an attorney and be advised of those rights. the public safety exemption is a very narrow exemption. there has to be an imminent threat to the public. it certainly seems less imminent. >> don't officials who say the terror is over, don't they kind of undercut that argument, and does it really matter in the end? >> this is certainly an argument that's going to be handed to this defendant's defense attorney when that time comes. there have been contradictory statements made that there is no public threat, there is no ticking bomb, thank goodness, apparently, based on what we know so far. so we're giving them an argument to use later. >> the issue is, the questioning that's permitted without miranda is very narrow in scope, correct? >> yes. it's about what the public threat is. it's not all
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)